|
Post by amyghost on Jan 30, 2024 19:35:40 GMT
It's presumptuous in the extreme to refer to indigenous people as being 'trapped in a primitive lifestyle' for openers. Primitive according to whom? Yourself? The Church? This is a marvelous capsule presentation of the arrogance of Christian missionary mentality. 'What we have is better than your primitive ways', even if those ways have lasted for centuries and have worked well and harmoniously for the people practicing them. If they don't include a big dose of Jesus, well, that sure can't be anything good. One can certainly make a case for the damage wrought historically by incursion through the migration of peoples onto other lands and cultures.Their changes were accidental and incidental, if still often enough devastating and regrettable; but they did not set out with the deliberate intent of upending and changing those cultures the way the Christian missionary does. Over the course of history, there's precious little enough chance that even the more remote populations of the earth would have completely escaped contact with the 'outside' world entirely, without the missionary hastening the process; and, historically, often as not, it was the initial incursion by missionaries that aided in paving the road for other exploitative elements of that same outside world to find their way in. When Europeans came to the New World, the peoples that lived here for thousands of years, were mainly hunter-gatherers, etc. They (the Natives)did not have the technologies that the Europeans (as well as the Asians, Africans, etc) had developed, including a system of writing, etc. Indigenous Peoples Of North AmericaI fail to see the point you're presumably aiming at. They lived for thousands of years without these technologies (and this is true only of North American societies; Mesoamerican societies, including the Aztecs, Maya, Mixtecs and Zapotecs did indeed have written language systems) and apparently thrived as a people. Why, exactly, did this make them so 'primitive' that they needed those same Europeans to forcibly introduce them? And this is eliding the point of this discussion (the harm that missionary work does) entirely. BTW, until well into the Common Era, Africans (i.e the various and diverse peoples of the African continent) did not have any written script, with the exceptions of Egyptian hieroglyphics and the Ge'ez* script. * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ge%CA%BDez_script
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 30, 2024 20:10:53 GMT
When Europeans came to the New World, the peoples that lived here for thousands of years, were mainly hunter-gatherers, etc. They (the Natives)did not have the technologies that the Europeans (as well as the Asians, Africans, etc) had developed, including a system of writing, etc. Indigenous Peoples Of North AmericaI fail to see the point you're presumably aiming at. They lived for thousands of years without these technologies (and this is true only of North American societies; Mesoamerican societies, including the Aztecs, Maya, Mixtecs and Zapotecs did indeed have written language systems) and apparently thrived as a people. Why, exactly, did this make them so 'primitive' that they needed those same Europeans to forcibly introduce them? And this is eliding the point of this discussion (the harm that missionary work does) entirely. BTW, until well into the Common Era, Africans (i.e the various and diverse peoples of the African continent) did not have any written script, with the exceptions of Egyptian hieroglyphics and the Ge'ez* script. * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ge%CA%BDez_scriptThe Mesoamericans, etc., were the exceptions, rather than the norm. They also practiced human sacrifice, & child sacrifice in particular. Child Sacrifice In The Aztec ReligionBut, back to the Natives of North Americans: Did you know that the Iroquois killed off the Huron Natives? Iroquois' Destruction Of HuroniaYes, you are correct, about the African people: There was both advance & primitive peoples on the Continent. That is how the slave trade came about. The Slave Trade
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 30, 2024 20:52:38 GMT
I fail to see the point you're presumably aiming at. They lived for thousands of years without these technologies (and this is true only of North American societies; Mesoamerican societies, including the Aztecs, Maya, Mixtecs and Zapotecs did indeed have written language systems) and apparently thrived as a people. Why, exactly, did this make them so 'primitive' that they needed those same Europeans to forcibly introduce them? And this is eliding the point of this discussion (the harm that missionary work does) entirely. BTW, until well into the Common Era, Africans (i.e the various and diverse peoples of the African continent) did not have any written script, with the exceptions of Egyptian hieroglyphics and the Ge'ez* script. * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ge%CA%BDez_scriptThe Mesoamericans, etc., were the exceptions, rather than the norm. They also practiced human sacrifice, & child sacrifice in particular. Child Sacrifice In The Aztec ReligionBut, back to the Natives of North Americans: Did you know that the Iroquois killed off the Huron Natives? Iroquois' Destruction Of HuroniaYes, you are correct, about the African people: There was both advance & primitive peoples on the Continent. That is how the slave trade came about. The Slave Trade
All of which is interesting, and instructive on the undebated point that no one human group has a lock on man's tendency to be inhumane to his fellow man. But none of this is pertinent to the topic under discussion, which is that Christian missionary work has been at least as harmful and destructive to the cultures and societies it's come in contact with as it has been of any benefit. Much research tends to show it's been demonstrably more harmful than otherwise. And the Mesoamericans were large, diverse and of lengthy existence, hardly an 'exception to a rule', as they likely predate the existence of at least some of the North American societies--some of whom were descendants of those same Mesoamerican groups. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerica
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 30, 2024 21:06:50 GMT
The Mesoamericans, etc., were the exceptions, rather than the norm. They also practiced human sacrifice, & child sacrifice in particular. Child Sacrifice In The Aztec ReligionBut, back to the Natives of North Americans: Did you know that the Iroquois killed off the Huron Natives? Iroquois' Destruction Of HuroniaYes, you are correct, about the African people: There was both advance & primitive peoples on the Continent. That is how the slave trade came about. The Slave Trade
All of which is interesting, and instructive on the undebated point that no one human group has a lock on man's tendency to be inhumane to his fellow man. But none of this is pertinent to the topic under discussion, which is that Christian missionary work has been at least as harmful and destructive to the cultures and societies it's come in contact with as it has been of any benefit. Much research tends to show it's been demonstrably more harmful than otherwise. And the Mesoamericans were large, diverse and of lengthy existence, hardly an 'exception to a rule', as they likely predate the existence of at least some of the North American societies--some of whom were descendants of those same Mesoamerican groups. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MesoamericaEuropeans in general, not just missionaries, were pretty much harmful to the Native American way of life, as Europeans came to settle in the New World, & build upon it. Yes, diseases were spread by the unsuspecting missionaries (& no doubt, the other, afore-mentioned European colonizers too), but all that happened, before we knew or understood exactly how disease could be spread to others. Even to this very day, new diseases can be spread internationally, as we have seen with the effects of the COVID-19 virus & disease, which forced the entire world to lock everyone indoors, & only go out for their bare essentials. The Mesoamericans may have been huge, but, Native American tribes were still mainly hunter-gatherer groups.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 30, 2024 21:15:45 GMT
All of which is interesting, and instructive on the undebated point that no one human group has a lock on man's tendency to be inhumane to his fellow man. But none of this is pertinent to the topic under discussion, which is that Christian missionary work has been at least as harmful and destructive to the cultures and societies it's come in contact with as it has been of any benefit. Much research tends to show it's been demonstrably more harmful than otherwise. And the Mesoamericans were large, diverse and of lengthy existence, hardly an 'exception to a rule', as they likely predate the existence of at least some of the North American societies--some of whom were descendants of those same Mesoamerican groups. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MesoamericaEuropeans in general, not just missionaries, were pretty much harmful to the Native American way of life, as Europeans came to settle in the New World, & build upon it. Yes, diseases were spread by the unsuspecting missionaries (& no doubt, the other, afore-mentioned European colonizers too), but all that happened, before we knew or understood exactly how disease could be spread to others. Even to this very day, new diseases can be spread internationally, as we have seen with the effects of the COVID-19 virus & disease, which forced the entire world to lock everyone indoors, & only go out for their bare essentials. The Mesoamericans may have been huge, but, Native American tribes were still mainly hunter-gatherer groups. Once again, although European arrival in the New World wreaked terrible damage, those settling there did not come with the express purpose and intent of altering/destroying/upending ancient cultures and belief systems, which was the stated and express purpose of the Christian missionary's 'mission'. Since those cultures did not embrace the Jesus mythology, they could perforce be nothing but harmful and sinful; and it was the express doctrine of the Church to straighten them out on this point--no matter the cost.
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 961
Likes: 310
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 30, 2024 23:10:08 GMT
Cortez was such a lamb ! Never intended harm, what is a little murder or two in the name of the Lord between friendly contemporaries, uh ? I’ll have to buy another couch, I see. 💋
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 30, 2024 23:55:43 GMT
Europeans in general, not just missionaries, were pretty much harmful to the Native American way of life, as Europeans came to settle in the New World, & build upon it. Yes, diseases were spread by the unsuspecting missionaries (& no doubt, the other, afore-mentioned European colonizers too), but all that happened, before we knew or understood exactly how disease could be spread to others. Even to this very day, new diseases can be spread internationally, as we have seen with the effects of the COVID-19 virus & disease, which forced the entire world to lock everyone indoors, & only go out for their bare essentials. The Mesoamericans may have been huge, but, Native American tribes were still mainly hunter-gatherer groups. Once again, although European arrival in the New World wreaked terrible damage, those settling there did not come with the express purpose and intent of altering/destroying/upending ancient cultures and belief systems, which was the stated and express purpose of the Christian missionary's 'mission'. Since those cultures did not embrace the Jesus mythology, they could perforce be nothing but harmful and sinful; and it was the express doctrine of the Church to straighten them out on this point--no matter the cost. Those settling would demolish forests, etc., to build towns, cities, etc, thereby shrinking lands lived on by Natives. Missionaries came with the expressed intention, to preach the Gospel Of Christ to the Natives, who had never heard Of Him, until they came. Missionaries lived amongst the Natives, in their own style of living, as opposed to creating cities (like the old world).
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 31, 2024 1:02:31 GMT
Once again, although European arrival in the New World wreaked terrible damage, those settling there did not come with the express purpose and intent of altering/destroying/upending ancient cultures and belief systems, which was the stated and express purpose of the Christian missionary's 'mission'. Since those cultures did not embrace the Jesus mythology, they could perforce be nothing but harmful and sinful; and it was the express doctrine of the Church to straighten them out on this point--no matter the cost. Those settling would demolish forests, etc., to build towns, cities, etc, thereby shrinking lands lived on by Natives. Missionaries came with the expressed intention, to preach the Gospel Of Christ to the Natives, who had never heard Of Him, until they came. Missionaries lived amongst the Natives, in their own style of living, as opposed to creating cities (like the old world). And why was it so necessary for them to hear about Jesus? Let's not forget that, no matter what style those missionaries chose to adopt as living arrangements, at the end of the day they were still representatives of those same interests who were demolishing forests, building towns (including their 'New Jerusalems') and denuding the indigenes of their traditional way of life. Their 'missions' were beholden to the invaders, not to the ones invaded. For all of the spiritual cant, they represented capitalist practice and interest as an unavoidable concomitant of their Western religious values. That remains firmly the case today.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 31, 2024 1:15:34 GMT
Those settling would demolish forests, etc., to build towns, cities, etc, thereby shrinking lands lived on by Natives. Missionaries came with the expressed intention, to preach the Gospel Of Christ to the Natives, who had never heard Of Him, until they came. Missionaries lived amongst the Natives, in their own style of living, as opposed to creating cities (like the old world). And why was it so necessary for them to hear about Jesus? Let's not forget that, no matter what style those missionaries chose to adopt as living arrangements, at the end of the day they were still representatives of those same interests who were demolishing forests, building towns (including their 'New Jerusalems') and denuding the indigenes of their traditional way of life. Their 'missions' were beholden to the invaders, not to the ones invaded. For all of the spiritual cant, they represented capitalist practice and interest as an unavoidable concomitant of their Western religious values. That remains firmly the case today. Jesus Died for the sins of humanity. Why would they not want to know about Our Lord Jesus' Sacrifice for their sins. Native American/First Nations are very devout Christians today. If Asians had been the ones who made the first (official) discovery of the New World, Buddhist missionaries would have come to preach the Buddha to the Natives.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 31, 2024 1:23:52 GMT
And why was it so necessary for them to hear about Jesus? Let's not forget that, no matter what style those missionaries chose to adopt as living arrangements, at the end of the day they were still representatives of those same interests who were demolishing forests, building towns (including their 'New Jerusalems') and denuding the indigenes of their traditional way of life. Their 'missions' were beholden to the invaders, not to the ones invaded. For all of the spiritual cant, they represented capitalist practice and interest as an unavoidable concomitant of their Western religious values. That remains firmly the case today. Jesus Died for the sins of humanity. Why would they not want to know about Our Lord Jesus' Sacrifice for their sins. Native American/First Nations are very devout Christians today. If Asians had been the ones who made the first (official) discovery of the New World, Buddhist missionaries would have come to preach the Buddha to the Natives. Many are not, and many still harbor deep resentments over the forcing of Christianity onto their societies. Christianity is the only major religion which feels an ongoing obsession with foisting its mythologies onto others, with the arrogant claim of its exclusive 'truthfulness'. If you believe Jesus died for your sins, that's nice. If you don't, as many in the world do not, it's not up to you to convert their thinking on that either voluntarily or forcibly. And your last clause is incorrect. It is not in line with Buddhist beliefs or practice to evangelize or 'witness' to those of other cultures and belief systems, or to utilize those means to create converts. www.mukogawa-u.ac.jp/~iasu2012/pdf/iaSU2012_Proceedings_603.pdf
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 31, 2024 1:33:10 GMT
Jesus Died for the sins of humanity. Why would they not want to know about Our Lord Jesus' Sacrifice for their sins. Native American/First Nations are very devout Christians today. If Asians had been the ones who made the first (official) discovery of the New World, Buddhist missionaries would have come to preach the Buddha to the Natives. Many are not, and many still harbor deep resentments over the forcing of Christianity onto their societies. Christianity is the only major religion which feels an ongoing obsession with foisting its mythologies onto others, with the arrogant claim of its exclusive 'truthfulness'. If you believe Jesus died for your sins, that's nice. If you don't, as many in the world do not, it's not up to you to convert their thinking on that either voluntarily or forcibly. And your last clause is incorrect. It is not in line with Buddhist beliefs or practice to evangelize or 'witness' to those of other cultures and belief systems, or to utilize those means to create converts. www.mukogawa-u.ac.jp/~iasu2012/pdf/iaSU2012_Proceedings_603.pdfTrue, many retained their ancient Native beliefs, while others embraced Christianity (& yet still, managed to practice their traditional culture). And you are wrong. There have been Buddhist missionaries, otherwise, Buddhism would never have become the predominant religion of Asia. The difference between Buddhism & Christianity is, with Buddhism there is no contradiction in following more than one religion, therefore, in China, it was practiced right along with both Taoism & Confucianism; in Japan, it was practiced alongside Shinto; in Tibet, it was practiced alongside Bon; etc. This is due primarily to the fact that Buddhism is polytheistic, while Christianity is monotheistic. Buddhist Missionaries
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 31, 2024 1:43:28 GMT
Many are not, and many still harbor deep resentments over the forcing of Christianity onto their societies. Christianity is the only major religion which feels an ongoing obsession with foisting its mythologies onto others, with the arrogant claim of its exclusive 'truthfulness'. If you believe Jesus died for your sins, that's nice. If you don't, as many in the world do not, it's not up to you to convert their thinking on that either voluntarily or forcibly. And your last clause is incorrect. It is not in line with Buddhist beliefs or practice to evangelize or 'witness' to those of other cultures and belief systems, or to utilize those means to create converts. www.mukogawa-u.ac.jp/~iasu2012/pdf/iaSU2012_Proceedings_603.pdfTrue, many retained their ancient Native beliefs, while others embraced Christianity (& yet still, managed to practice their traditional culture). And you are wrong. There have been Buddhist missionaries, otherwise, Buddhism would never have become the predominant religion of Asia. The difference between Buddhism & Christianity is, with Buddhism there is no contradiction in following more than one religion, therefore, in China, it was practiced right along with both Taoism & Confucianism; in Japan, it was practiced alongside Shinto; in Tibet, it was practiced alongside Bon; etc. This is due primarily to the fact that Buddhism is polytheistic, while Christianity is monotheistic. Buddhist MissionariesMore properly called 'teachers' as they were/are involved in illuminating a philosophically-based system, as opposed to a mystic 'god' based one. They do not follow the 'salvation' impetus of Christian missionaries (and also are not the predominant religion in Asia--Islam is), and are not polytheistic--they have no belief in a system of gods, although their progenitor religion, Hindusim, does. Their 'mission' insofar as it can be called that, is to enlighten--not to convert.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 31, 2024 2:59:03 GMT
True, many retained their ancient Native beliefs, while others embraced Christianity (& yet still, managed to practice their traditional culture). And you are wrong. There have been Buddhist missionaries, otherwise, Buddhism would never have become the predominant religion of Asia. The difference between Buddhism & Christianity is, with Buddhism there is no contradiction in following more than one religion, therefore, in China, it was practiced right along with both Taoism & Confucianism; in Japan, it was practiced alongside Shinto; in Tibet, it was practiced alongside Bon; etc. This is due primarily to the fact that Buddhism is polytheistic, while Christianity is monotheistic. Buddhist MissionariesMore properly called 'teachers' as they were/are involved in illuminating a philosophically-based system, as opposed to a mystic 'god' based one. They do not follow the 'salvation' impetus of Christian missionaries (and also are not the predominant religion in Asia--Islam is), and are not polytheistic--they have no belief in a system of gods, although their progenitor religion, Hindusim, does. Their 'mission' insofar as it can be called that, is to enlighten--not to convert. Islam is the predominant religion of the Middle East, and/or North Africa. Buddhism --right alongside Confucianism -- is predominant in Asian countries such as China, Hong Kong, Japan, Thailand, etc. And yes, Buddhism is polytheistic, just like its parent religion, Hinduism is. Buddhism has deities. In Buddhism, being Buddha is higher than being a god. Buddhist Deities
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 31, 2024 15:10:47 GMT
More properly called 'teachers' as they were/are involved in illuminating a philosophically-based system, as opposed to a mystic 'god' based one. They do not follow the 'salvation' impetus of Christian missionaries (and also are not the predominant religion in Asia--Islam is), and are not polytheistic--they have no belief in a system of gods, although their progenitor religion, Hindusim, does. Their 'mission' insofar as it can be called that, is to enlighten--not to convert. Islam is the predominant religion of the Middle East, and/or North Africa. Buddhism --right alongside Confucianism -- is predominant in Asian countries such as China, Hong Kong, Japan, Thailand, etc. And yes, Buddhism is polytheistic, just like its parent religion, Hinduism is. Buddhism has deities. In Buddhism, being Buddha is higher than being a god. Buddhist Deities[T] he religious demographics of Asia are diverse, with no single religion representing an absolute majority of the population. Notwithstanding, Islam is the largest religion in Asia, with approximately 1.3 billion adherents as of 2022. (Source: Wikipedia)Asia is the birthplace of Islam (as well as the mother continent of all the world’s other major religions including Christianity). Since the sixth century CE, Asia has hosted the world’s largest population of Muslims. Today, there are almost 870 million Muslims living in the five geographical regions of Asia: South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Central Asia, and West Asia. Of the approximately 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, 70 percent live in Asian countries. Islam now has more adherents than any other religion in Asia. (Source: Association for Asian Studies)The number of Muslims in the Asia-Pacific region – which, for purposes of this report, includes not only East Asian countries such as China but also countries as far west as Turkey – is projected to increase from about 1 billion in 2010 to about 1.3 billion in 2030. Nearly three in- ten people living in the Asia-Pacific region in 2030 (27.3%) will be Muslim, up from about a quarter in 2010 (24.8%) and roughly a fifth in 1990 (21.6%). More than half of the world’s Muslims live in the Asia-Pacific region. However, the region’s share of the global Muslim population is projected to decline somewhat in the next 20 years, from 62.1% in 2010 to 59.2% in 2030. This is because the Muslim population in Asia-Pacific is not growing as fast as the Muslim population in some other regions, such as sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East-North Africa. (Source: Pew Research Center)Islam is the most prominent religion in Asia with over 1.1 billion followers. It is an Abraham religion whose followers adhere to the teachings of Mohammad (God’s last prophet). These teachings are articulated in the Qur’an. Southeast Asia and South Asia are home to some of the most populous Islamic nations like Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia with each having over a hundred million Muslims. In central Asia; Uzbekistan and Afghanistan are the two countries with the largest Muslim population, while the non-Arab nations of Turkey and Iran have the highest number of Muslims in Western Asia. Some of the 23 major Muslim countries in Asia include Lebanon, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, and Qatar among others. Bangladesh is 90% Muslim, Pakistan is 97% Muslim, and Indonesia which has the largest Muslim population is only 87% Muslim.(Source:WorldAtlas)You appear not to understand the concept of Buddha in this tradition especially well: www.history.com/topics/religion/buddhismBuddhism does not recognize the concept of a monolithic 'God', ergo neither The Buddha nor any Buddha can be 'higher than God'. Buddhism, though initially a branch of Hinduism, is rarely considered polytheistic because the commands and worship of the deities (if believed in) is less important that the moral and ethical guidelines of the religion. (Source: Study.com)
Only in Japanese Buddhism does there appear a hierarchy (The Buddhist Pantheon), but these are not viewed or worshipped as 'gods' in the Western religious sense. I suspect you've been fed some intentionally misleading data regarding Buddhism by interested parties who have some stake in misrepresentations of key points in the Buddhist system. I have very little doubt you've been given intentionally misleading data regarding the prevalence of Islamic followers in Asia, due, no doubt, to a desire on the part of Western religious groups to play down the ubiquity and strength of Islam throughout that region.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 31, 2024 17:47:09 GMT
Islam is the predominant religion of the Middle East, and/or North Africa. Buddhism --right alongside Confucianism -- is predominant in Asian countries such as China, Hong Kong, Japan, Thailand, etc. And yes, Buddhism is polytheistic, just like its parent religion, Hinduism is. Buddhism has deities. In Buddhism, being Buddha is higher than being a god. Buddhist Deities[T] he religious demographics of Asia are diverse, with no single religion representing an absolute majority of the population. Notwithstanding, Islam is the largest religion in Asia, with approximately 1.3 billion adherents as of 2022. (Source: Wikipedia)Asia is the birthplace of Islam (as well as the mother continent of all the world’s other major religions including Christianity). Since the sixth century CE, Asia has hosted the world’s largest population of Muslims. Today, there are almost 870 million Muslims living in the five geographical regions of Asia: South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Central Asia, and West Asia. Of the approximately 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, 70 percent live in Asian countries. Islam now has more adherents than any other religion in Asia. (Source: Association for Asian Studies)The number of Muslims in the Asia-Pacific region – which, for purposes of this report, includes not only East Asian countries such as China but also countries as far west as Turkey – is projected to increase from about 1 billion in 2010 to about 1.3 billion in 2030. Nearly three in- ten people living in the Asia-Pacific region in 2030 (27.3%) will be Muslim, up from about a quarter in 2010 (24.8%) and roughly a fifth in 1990 (21.6%). More than half of the world’s Muslims live in the Asia-Pacific region. However, the region’s share of the global Muslim population is projected to decline somewhat in the next 20 years, from 62.1% in 2010 to 59.2% in 2030. This is because the Muslim population in Asia-Pacific is not growing as fast as the Muslim population in some other regions, such as sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East-North Africa. (Source: Pew Research Center)Islam is the most prominent religion in Asia with over 1.1 billion followers. It is an Abraham religion whose followers adhere to the teachings of Mohammad (God’s last prophet). These teachings are articulated in the Qur’an. Southeast Asia and South Asia are home to some of the most populous Islamic nations like Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia with each having over a hundred million Muslims. In central Asia; Uzbekistan and Afghanistan are the two countries with the largest Muslim population, while the non-Arab nations of Turkey and Iran have the highest number of Muslims in Western Asia. Some of the 23 major Muslim countries in Asia include Lebanon, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, and Qatar among others. Bangladesh is 90% Muslim, Pakistan is 97% Muslim, and Indonesia which has the largest Muslim population is only 87% Muslim.(Source:WorldAtlas)You appear not to understand the concept of Buddha in this tradition especially well: www.history.com/topics/religion/buddhismBuddhism does not recognize the concept of a monolithic 'God', ergo neither The Buddha nor any Buddha can be 'higher than God'. Buddhism, though initially a branch of Hinduism, is rarely considered polytheistic because the commands and worship of the deities (if believed in) is less important that the moral and ethical guidelines of the religion. (Source: Study.com)
Only in Japanese Buddhism does there appear a hierarchy (The Buddhist Pantheon), but these are not viewed or worshipped as 'gods' in the Western religious sense. I suspect you've been fed some intentionally misleading data regarding Buddhism by interested parties who have some stake in misrepresentations of key points in the Buddhist system. I have very little doubt you've been given intentionally misleading data regarding the prevalence of Islamic followers in Asia, due, no doubt, to a desire on the part of Western religious groups to play down the ubiquity and strength of Islam throughout that region. I am aware that Buddhism - like Christianity & all other world religions -is not monolithic. It is divided into numerous denominations, sects, schools, etc. I have seen Buddhists BOTH online & in real life say that the Buddha is higher than God. God Or BuddhaNot just in Japanese Buddhism, but in other Buddhisms as well, there are deities. What it is that Buddhism does not believe in, is a Supreme Creator. The paradox is Brahma - who is the creator god in Hinduism - plays a bigger role in Buddhism, than he does in Hinduism. Devas & Brahmas Honour The Buddha
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 31, 2024 19:17:27 GMT
[T] he religious demographics of Asia are diverse, with no single religion representing an absolute majority of the population. Notwithstanding, Islam is the largest religion in Asia, with approximately 1.3 billion adherents as of 2022. (Source: Wikipedia)Asia is the birthplace of Islam (as well as the mother continent of all the world’s other major religions including Christianity). Since the sixth century CE, Asia has hosted the world’s largest population of Muslims. Today, there are almost 870 million Muslims living in the five geographical regions of Asia: South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Central Asia, and West Asia. Of the approximately 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, 70 percent live in Asian countries. Islam now has more adherents than any other religion in Asia. (Source: Association for Asian Studies)The number of Muslims in the Asia-Pacific region – which, for purposes of this report, includes not only East Asian countries such as China but also countries as far west as Turkey – is projected to increase from about 1 billion in 2010 to about 1.3 billion in 2030. Nearly three in- ten people living in the Asia-Pacific region in 2030 (27.3%) will be Muslim, up from about a quarter in 2010 (24.8%) and roughly a fifth in 1990 (21.6%). More than half of the world’s Muslims live in the Asia-Pacific region. However, the region’s share of the global Muslim population is projected to decline somewhat in the next 20 years, from 62.1% in 2010 to 59.2% in 2030. This is because the Muslim population in Asia-Pacific is not growing as fast as the Muslim population in some other regions, such as sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East-North Africa. (Source: Pew Research Center)Islam is the most prominent religion in Asia with over 1.1 billion followers. It is an Abraham religion whose followers adhere to the teachings of Mohammad (God’s last prophet). These teachings are articulated in the Qur’an. Southeast Asia and South Asia are home to some of the most populous Islamic nations like Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia with each having over a hundred million Muslims. In central Asia; Uzbekistan and Afghanistan are the two countries with the largest Muslim population, while the non-Arab nations of Turkey and Iran have the highest number of Muslims in Western Asia. Some of the 23 major Muslim countries in Asia include Lebanon, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, and Qatar among others. Bangladesh is 90% Muslim, Pakistan is 97% Muslim, and Indonesia which has the largest Muslim population is only 87% Muslim.(Source:WorldAtlas)You appear not to understand the concept of Buddha in this tradition especially well: www.history.com/topics/religion/buddhismBuddhism does not recognize the concept of a monolithic 'God', ergo neither The Buddha nor any Buddha can be 'higher than God'. Buddhism, though initially a branch of Hinduism, is rarely considered polytheistic because the commands and worship of the deities (if believed in) is less important that the moral and ethical guidelines of the religion. (Source: Study.com)
Only in Japanese Buddhism does there appear a hierarchy (The Buddhist Pantheon), but these are not viewed or worshipped as 'gods' in the Western religious sense. I suspect you've been fed some intentionally misleading data regarding Buddhism by interested parties who have some stake in misrepresentations of key points in the Buddhist system. I have very little doubt you've been given intentionally misleading data regarding the prevalence of Islamic followers in Asia, due, no doubt, to a desire on the part of Western religious groups to play down the ubiquity and strength of Islam throughout that region. I am aware that Buddhism - like Christianity & all other world religions -is not monolithic. It is divided into numerous denominations, sects, schools, etc. I have seen Buddhists BOTH online & in real life say that the Buddha is higher than God. God Or BuddhaNot just in Japanese Buddhism, but in other Buddhisms as well, there are deities. What it is that Buddhism does not believe in, is a Supreme Creator. The paradox is Brahma - who is the creator god in Hinduism - plays a bigger role in Buddhism, than he does in Hinduism. Devas & Brahmas Honour The BuddhaBuddhism (according to the version practiced) has spiritual beings, but they are not 'deities' in the sense in which you're employing the word, as Buddhism has no belief in God or gods as creator beings. www.diffen.com/difference/Buddhism_vs_Christianity
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 31, 2024 21:05:49 GMT
I am aware that Buddhism - like Christianity & all other world religions -is not monolithic. It is divided into numerous denominations, sects, schools, etc. I have seen Buddhists BOTH online & in real life say that the Buddha is higher than God. God Or BuddhaNot just in Japanese Buddhism, but in other Buddhisms as well, there are deities. What it is that Buddhism does not believe in, is a Supreme Creator. The paradox is Brahma - who is the creator god in Hinduism - plays a bigger role in Buddhism, than he does in Hinduism. Devas & Brahmas Honour The BuddhaBuddhism (according to the version practiced) has spiritual beings, but they are not 'deities' in the sense in which you're employing the word, as Buddhism has no belief in God or gods as creator beings. www.diffen.com/difference/Buddhism_vs_ChristianityI already said that Buddhism rejects belief in a Supreme Creator. There are, however, NON-CREATOR gods & goddesses in Buddhism.
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 961
Likes: 310
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 31, 2024 21:08:52 GMT
The Mesoamericans, etc., were the exceptions, rather than the norm. They also practiced human sacrifice, & child sacrifice in particular. Child Sacrifice In The Aztec ReligionBut, back to the Natives of North Americans: Did you know that the Iroquois killed off the Huron Natives? Iroquois' Destruction Of HuroniaYes, you are correct, about the African people: There was both advance & primitive peoples on the Continent. That is how the slave trade came about. The Slave Trade
All of which is interesting, and instructive on the undebated point that no one human group has a lock on man's tendency to be inhumane to his fellow man. But none of this is pertinent to the topic under discussion, which is that Christian missionary work has been at least as harmful and destructive to the cultures and societies it's come in contact with as it has been of any benefit. Much research tends to show it's been demonstrably more harmful than otherwise. And the Mesoamericans were large, diverse and of lengthy existence, hardly an 'exception to a rule', as they likely predate the existence of at least some of the North American societies--some of whom were descendants of those same Mesoamerican groups. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MesoamericaBrutes only "make sound and fury"* Man... ?! I beg to differ. Brutes are not everything. * ‘Sound and fury, signifying nothing’ is a quotation from Shakespeare’s play, Macbeth. ‘It’s all sound and fury, signifying nothing’ is something you may say to or about a person who is making a big fuss, maybe shouting and/or using bad language, and becoming really angry concerning a particular issue, when it’s not anything they can do something about, and all the noise and fuss amount to nothing and are just a waste of time and energy. ‘Sound and fury, signifying nothing’ context from Macbeth Macbeth is just about at the end of his tether, having murdered his king to become king himself, and then, having to maintain his position by conducting a reign of terror against his opponents, he is exhausted and disillusioned. He has followed an irresistible ambition but now he finds that it has been a hollow quest. The phrase occurs in one of the most famous soliloquies in all of Shakespeare: Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day To the last syllable of recorded time, And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. Act 5, Scene 5 To Macbeth now, to harbour his burning, overweening, “vaulting” ambition was idiotic. He is in a state of depression and life is worthless – a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. This passage is one of the finest examples of Shakespeare’s use of poetry in his plays, where he uses imagery to create the soliloquy’s meaning. At this point the intensity of Macbeth’s suffering is becoming unbearable. A victim’s ghost is haunting him, his guilt is torturing him, his enemies are closing in on him, his wife has lost her sanity and now he’s just heard that she’s killed herself. We would expect a response with language that expresses a wild and desperate state of mind but instead we have a slow reflection that follows the pattern of his thoughts. They seem random as his mind jumps from one idea to the next without any logic. He mentions time, then candles, acting and the theatre, shadows, and a tale told by an idiot. It all seems loose and jumbled: there is no intellectual logic in the development of the passage. However, there is a poetical, imaginative logic that makes the piece very tight, and one of the most remarkable achievements one could find in English poetry. In this soliloquy Macbeth is a man for whom life has ceased to have meaning. He starts with a statement of the futility of life and of time itself with images of time – tomorrow, day, yesterday, recorded time – using a rhythm that stretches time out and makes it creep. Then there is a mention of light, but it’s only the daylight that guides us to the darkness of death. The light has come naturally from the images of time, particularly the word ‘day’. In death that light is extinguished, like a candle, which is the next image, and a candle’s light is brief, like life, compared with the long period of the dark night to come. A shadow is another term for an actor, so the shadow thrown by the candle creates the image of an actor on the stage. The actor plays out the dramas and anguish of a human being, strutting and fretting, but that only lasts for the performance, and then he goes home and you don’t hear from him again. The actor’s passion has been shallow – just an act – and for a very short time. All that is a representation of life in the context of an eternity of death: it’s full of an empty passion that is just the raving of an idiot: it doesn’t last and it’s meaningless. It’s a short piece of verse that sums up, not only a weariness of life but a whole philosophy of life and its futility. Each image gives birth to a new one and the beautiful logic develops in that way. And it captures perfectly the state of mind of the speaker. There’s no wonder it’s one of the most famous passages in English poetry. ‘Sound and fury, signifying nothing’ ‘Sound and fury elsewhere in literature’ The Sound and the Fury is a phrase that is more famous as the title of a novel by the American writer, William Faulkner. One of the narrators of the novel, all members of the Compson family, is Benjy, who has severe learning difficulties. In previous times people with such a condition were called “idiots.” In this case, though, Benjy’s ramblings and confusions add up to several insights into the story of the Compson family. The title is therefore ironic. source : link
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 961
Likes: 310
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 31, 2024 21:34:52 GMT
A There are is not good anglish. It’s only there is. Point. B One should always finish what one began. C And how could you deprive us from noting here and there those arguments ? Have we done anything wrong ? Love, T
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 961
Likes: 310
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 31, 2024 21:44:24 GMT
Those settling would demolish forests, etc., to build towns, cities, etc, thereby shrinking lands lived on by Natives. Missionaries came with the expressed intention, to preach the Gospel Of Christ to the Natives, who had never heard Of Him, until they came. Missionaries lived amongst the Natives, in their own style of living, as opposed to creating cities (like the old world). And why was it so necessary for them to hear about Jesus? Let's not forget that, no matter what style those missionaries chose to adopt as living arrangements, at the end of the day they were still representatives of those same interests who were demolishing forests, building towns (including their 'New Jerusalems') and denuding the indigenes of their traditional way of life. Their 'missions' were beholden to the invaders, not to the ones invaded. For all of the spiritual cant, they represented capitalist practice and interest as an unavoidable concomitant of their Western religious values. That remains firmly the case today. Oh dear... I beg to differ. Wrong time reference. Capitalism, that’s XIXth century.
|
|